The following was a prepared statement for the 10th Amendment Forum in Orlando, FL on 08-22-09

First of all, thank you for allowing me a few moments to be here with you today â€“ itâ€™s an honor to be able to speak with you, even if itâ€™s from the other side of the country where I am here in Los Angeles, California.

As the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center, Iâ€™m often asked â€“ why the Tenth Amendment?Â Why do we need it?Â And I truly believe thatâ€™s just what people like you and I were asking back in the time when this country was founded, too.

But, the answer isnâ€™t complex.Â It isnâ€™t difficult.Â Itâ€™s simple and itâ€™s easy to understand. The People of the day, the Founding Generation, like so many of us today, recognized that a government of strictly limited powers is the only one that has a chance of protecting our liberty â€“ and thatâ€™s just the kind of government that the People created when they ratified the Constitution so many years ago.

They did this because they knew through their own life experience, that a government without limits is a tyranny.

The 10th Amendment was ratified as an exclamation point on the Constitution â€“ and it lays out in plain English that our federal government is to be one of limited, enumerated powers â€“ not the nearly unlimited, unchecked one that it has become today.

It truly is our modern line in the sand.Â On one side, we have those who believe in limiting the power of politicians, and on the other are those that trust the government to do everything.

The 10th Amendment is the safety valve that makes it clear, especially in conjunctionÂ with the 9th, that it was The People who created the federal government to be our agent for certain enumerated purposesâ€¦â€¦.and nothing more.

The federal government didnâ€™t create itself – and the state governments didnâ€™t create it either.Â It was The People who created the federal government, and it is the People who are sovereign in the American system.Â This couldnâ€™t have been more clearly stated than it was in the Federalist Papers, #22. And hereâ€™s the quote:

â€œThe fabric of American empire ought to rest on the solid basis of THE CONSENT OF THE PEOPLE. The streams of national power ought to flow immediately from that pure, original fountain of all legitimate authority.â€

And that wasnâ€™t Madison or Jay.Â It was the man who at the time was seen as the greatest believer in centralized power, Alexander Hamilton.Â So, back then, even the great centralizer recognized that power comes from the People.Â And thatâ€™s the way it was at the beginning â€“ and thatâ€™s the way it is today.

So only when â€œWe the Peopleâ€ actually regain that power over the government that is supposed to be our agent â€“ only then will we ever see liberty and prosperity flourish in this country.

And, I believe that the path to this is not in Washington D.C.Â Itâ€™s not in asking federal politicians to let us exercise our rights, or hoping that federal judges will give us permission to exercise our rights.Â But instead, the path is in Tallahassee and state capitols around the country.Â Courageous State legislators â€“ like your own Carey Baker and Scott Plakon â€“ are calling on the Jeffersonian tradition of nullification to resist unconstitutional federal laws.

When a state “nullifies” a federal law, it is proclaiming that the law in question is void and inoperative, or “non-effective,” within the boundaries of that state; or, in other words, itâ€™s actually not a law as far as that state is concerned.Â We see this principle being raised in opposition to national ID cards, federal gun regulations and even proposed national health care plans.

Starting in 2007, there was a state-level resistance to the federal government that rose up in a way that this country hasnâ€™t seen since the mid-19th century.Â Approximately two dozen states simply refused to comply with federal law.Â They refused to implement the Bush era Real ID act.Â Â And guess what?Â Today itâ€™s gone without even needing congress to repeal it.

So whatâ€™s the lesson?Â Through nullification, we can effectively resist DC and whatever they try to shove down our throats.

This year, 26 states have seen a firearms freedom act introduced, and already two states have already made them law â€“ thatâ€™s Montana and Tennessee.

Sources close to the Tenth Amendment Center tell us to expect to see ten states introduce state constitutional amendments which would effectively ban a forced national health care plan â€“ and your state of Florida is leading the way.

Thereâ€™s plenty of outrage these days, and that can be seen by the activism at town hall meetings around the country.Â But think of it this way – If, instead of making demands on federal politicians who donâ€™t listen to us anyway, all this energy was instead focused on state governments, weâ€™d probably see 10 or 20 health nullification bills in states already.Â And Obamaâ€™s health care program would be just that much closer to being dead in the water today.

The bottom line?Â As Jefferson wrote back in the Kentucky resolutions of 1798 â€“ the people of this country are not united on a principle of unlimited submission to their general government.

So, with that, I urge you â€“ each and every one of you here right now â€“ to take the ball and run with it.Â When people like you say â€œIâ€™m not going to wait anymore â€“ Iâ€™m going to lead!â€ thatâ€™s when weâ€™ll see this great movement in support of the constitution and your liberty really take off.

Thank you.

Michael Boldin [send him email] is the founder of the Tenth Amendment Center.

Do you believe the Constitution is the rule of law? Do you believe in the original intent of our founding fathers? Do you want to reform Congress? If your answer is yes, we have to work together to make this happen.

Mr. Boldin wrote:
“The federal government didnâ€™t create itself – and the state governments didnâ€™t create it either. It was The People who created the federal government, and it is the People who are sovereign in the American system.”
After listening to a number of lectures and interviews featuring Tom Woods, Ralph Natelson and a few others, I have to say that it seems to me that the compact theorists have the stronger arguments based on history. I’m inclined to believe that The State’s DID create the federal government.

While the people may have created the federal government, in a sense, they had to have done so as citizens of independent, sovereign States, NOT as “the people” in aggregate.

However, I have decided I should read The Webster-Hayne Debate on the Nature of the Constitution as well as Abel Upshur’s “A Brief Enquiry into the Nature and Character of our Federal Government” before I completely make up my mind.

Finally, doesn’t sovereignty rest with the individual and not with “The People” collectively?

government didn’t create government. State governments – a creation of the people – didn’t create the federal government either.

The state governments, in a point of fact, had nothing whatsoever to do with the ratification of the constitution. The ratifying conventions were elected by the people for this sole purpose. In many cases, this was done to show that the ratification was being done by the people, not the governments.

So, whether it was “the people of the several states” that created the constitution (which I believe to be correct), or some singular “national people” who did it as someone like Justice John Marshall believed, it doesn’t matter. The reason for creating a system where the people created the government was to confirm their sovereignty..

And popular sovereignty at the time was widely understood as a system where – all powers not delegated, are retained.

The only states to be "sovereign" prior to their admission to the Union were California and Texas.

The 13 original colonies were not "sovereign" prior to 1776: they were colonies. During the Revolution they severally declared their natural right to rebel against the King but almost immediately became an emergency federation in which they sacrificed some sovereignity to Congress; but "sovereignity" as commonly understood by constitutional lawyers is like "pregnancy": a state or nation is either "sovereign" in all matters or else it is not.

The colonies then proceeded to continue to sacrifice some (that is, all) sovereignity to Congress and the Executive under the Articles of Confederation and then to Congress, the Executive and the Judiciary under the Constitution.

Other states, to the immediate west of the 13 original colonies, and known as "western reserves" were formed and granted admission to the Union in the 1810s and 1820s including Mississipi and Alabama. These states had even less claim to be "sovereign".

Other states were formed out of lands sold by Napoleon or ceded by Mexico by the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo which ended the Mexican war. They were never sovereign.

Texas had been a republic prior to asking to be admitted and likewise California. Hawaii had been a sovereign monarchy but then was basically colonized by the USA (with the enthusiastic connivance of the Hawaiians). Alaska had been a sort of province or colony of Russia prior to be sold to the USA.

So Texas, California, and perhaps Hawaii are the exceptions that prove my case, since they were the only states to be sovereign prior to entering the Union, Hawaii as a territory before 1960.

George Orwell is right. In politics, words have to mean something because people can get killed based on political language.

To say "the people are sovereign" is right in an extra- and super- legal sense, of course. This unpacks into the rule of law, majority rule and protection of the minority against the majority. But the Federalist Papers anticipates state tyranny in about as many words as it anticipates Federal tyranny, and regards it as the Constitution's job to protect the people against BOTH, not just Federal tyranny.

What protection do Wisconsin's hard working teachers have against a governor who never once said, while campaigning for office, that he would destroy public unions?

What protection did blacks have when the southern states enacted Jim Crow?

And what protection will people have against thugs, criminals, corporate whores, ambitious and unprincipled bimbos. and car dealers who get elected to state legislatures?

Alexander Hamilton understood that 9A and 10A were ‘hard deck’ amendments, but he also knew very, very well that both the Obligations of Contract and the Interstate Commerce clauses would, at some point, be used to circumvent all barriers to unlimited expansion of central government. Franklin Roosevelt and his lapdog congress and Supreme Court were the first to openly employ the Obligations of Contract clause to enslave the people by means of bribing them with their own money; read the enabling legislation for Social Security, with the ‘happy, happy, warm and fuzzy’ part followed by ‘ – – – to raise revenues, and for other purposes.’

The purpose of the Interstate Highway system was not, in my opinion, to provide the best possible routes for movement of forces needed for defense against an invading enemy, but to extend the authority over interstate commerce into, and across, the States themselves; there is no longer any effective barrier to federal authority over anything, or anyone, moving by road anywhere in the United States since ‘governement money’ is used for nearly every improved thourofare down to and including the two lane black tops and graded roads wending across deserts for farther than you have gas to travel.

Where are the hard 10th Amendment statutory actions by the States? These ‘resolutions’ do not have force of law, but are merely whiny little ‘Please, don’t hurt me, Mr. Bill’ pathetic snivels, with the sole purpose of conning the people into thinking the State legislature is actually fending off the central government. Nevada is one of the States which has passed a bouquet of ‘resolutions’, but every time somebody from DC calls up with a new demand, Nevada collapses like a cheap umbrella in a moderate wind. With rare exceptions, your State is as supine as is Nevada.

IT’S TIME FOR THE PEOPLE TO COME TOGETHER AND FIGHT PEACEFULLY TO REGAIN CONTROL OVER THE GOVERNMENT WHO ARE SUPPOSED TO BE WORKING FOR US THE PEOPLE NOT AGAINST US RESEARCH DR. BOB BASSO LISTEN LISTEN TO HIM AN LETS WORK WITH HIM FOR A COMMON YET NEGLECTED CAUSE THANX FOR READING MY COMMENT LETS GET TOGETHER PEOPLE

“[The purpose of a written constitution is] to bind up the several
branches of government by certain laws, which, when they
transgress, their acts shall become nullities; to render
unnecessary an appeal to the people, or in other words a rebellion,
on every infraction of their rights, on the peril that their
acquiescence shall be construed into an intention to surrender
those rights.” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia, 1782.

“If, instead of making demands on federal politicians who donâ€™t listen to us anyway, all this energy was instead focused on state governments, weâ€™d probably see 10 or 20 health nullification bills in states already”

Agreed. On all matters, not just national health.

On a national or multi-state level, I also believe that rather than holding a constitutional convention, we need to hold a nullification convention.

Rumblings of protestations due to misrepresentation.
…Of lines being drawn, and limits reached.
…..Of last straws, and last nerves.

After many years…Many many years…Of a great people being ignored, and an elected body abusing both power and privilege, Americans have been stirred to anger.

A sacred trust, unspoken but explicit, has been betrayed.
Politicians have long forgotten what is paramount: The affairs and concerns of those from whom they “derive their just powers”. And whether they truly have simply ‘forgotten’, or whether they have willfully chosen to ignore the citizenry…Their actions (or lack thereof) have awakened a collective ‘political leviathan’, lurking amongst the people, fueled by angst and outcry. A nearly tangible frustration, refusing to relent to ridicule, or acquiesce to the supposed “proprieties” of a political label or brand.

In short – We’re pissed. We’ve had it. And those who believe they are “in power” had better start listening to those of us who actually HAVE the power, by design, according to the Founding Fathers.

Let us remember:

“…Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed…”

From…The…CONSENT…Of…The…Governed.

We are “the governed”.
We The People.

We are the ones who give that “consent”, to those who we entrust with great responsibility.
And when that trust is betrayed, over and over again…Our consent must be withdrawn.“…It is (our) right, it is (our) duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for (our) future security.”

They’re taking over many areas of private industry.

They want to wrap their unclean hands around the necks of our elderly, “helping them along” with their “end of life decisions”.

They collect and store away our private information, holding it “hostage”…All because we dare to disagree and oppose a policy, a stance, or an agenda.

And it is time…to withdraw…OUR CONSENT!

They give us back our own money, in the form of “Cash for Clunkers” and “stimulus”, making it seem as if it’s a gift from the gods.

They offer to tax us more, and in return “provide” services we neither want nor need from a federal government.

They’ve limited our liberties, and defied our will!

It is time…to withdraw…OUR CONSENT!

“…Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

It is our right…It is our duty…to WITHDRAW OUR CONSENT!
By voice, by vote, by protestation and, if necessary, by legal secession! We are charged by the Founding Fathers to uphold the sacrifices they made with their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. We must not abuse-by-sloth, that which they handed down over these many centuries. We must involve ourselves in the goings-on of our politics, now and forever, be they local, state or federal. We must never again allow those in power…Those using and abusing OUR power…To bring our country to the very edge of prolonged civil unrest. Look around – we are nearly there!

A Constitutional Convention for states’ rights is, well, Constitutional. Do we want to avoid the chaos of a Soviet Union style breakup as promised by MAD, Mutual Assured Destruction, backed up by a 14 trillion dollar, “terrordollar”, Chinese communist Yuan, federal national debt, disaster? Do they Chinese believe “We the People will do anything for money, even a Benedict Arnold the betrayer, against George Washington & the Federalist Papers founding fathers? To betray my wife with a Monica Lewinsky is one thing of mutiny, loyalty up-loyalty down, but to betray my nation and Constitutional Bill of Rights, as did Benedict Arnold sell out onto royal aristocracy, (along with the son of Benjamin Franklin, who was jailed for his own good), is an entirely worse level of EgyptoPersia-GrecoRoman, Caesargodfather Caligula, pagan heathenism. A Nelson Mandela, truth commission, Decleration of Independence and Constitutional Convention for states’ rights, is well, Constitutional, whereas the Eurodollar empire, Old World, merely views New World, USAmerica as part of the age of Napoleon. To understand a Bible is to remember histories of Egypt, Persia, Greece, Rome, Africa, Europe, Asia, and the middle east Arabia. Never forget, never again.

Nullification votes in 30 States starting with national health care that win and take effect would put a stop RIGHT NOW to such a plan. You’ll not see it from the large population states. But you could see it from the others, that did not vote for Obama (not that McCain would have been any better, just slower.

The need is indeed to complete the attempt to get usable results from State Rights in acting on their 10th amendment powers. But that said, what timetable or conditions would indicate usable results are NOT occuring?

I am not totally sure State legislatures know they answer to the people either. Not yet. What will be the effect of States nullifying anything Federal, after the national laws are enactec, versus acting now.

Success in keeping the dog in the yard is more likely when the dog is still in the yard.

As a subscribing member of the 10th Amendment Center, I’d like to see instructions for State recalls. It would be nice to know where the leash it now.

I told my mailing list about a week ago that we should start working on our State governments instead of the feds because we CAN affect our states, whereas the feds just ignore us.

Most of them are too cowardly to hold town halls,. A few are ‘brave’ enough to have phone town halls. I’m expecting a call at 5:30, but I don’t expect it to have any affect on my new junior senator from Virginia.

Sorry— just because it starts with “We the People…” does not make the people the creators of the Constitution! The state representatives, some without express authority, met to fine tune the Articles of Confederation. The states wanted to create a union to come together to repel invasion, to foster trade, and if need be, function as a great big hammer against the bullies/imperialists. THE STATES, by way of their representatives, created the new union and only then did they take their new constitution back to the states for conventions to approve or disapprove of it. Keep in mind that “the People” were kept completely in the dark about this constitutional convention. The representatives met in and were sworn to secrecy. They debated the tough stuff and then submitted the results to the people through their states. The general welfare clause, among others, refers to the new nation as a whole. The people would obviously be the secondary beneficiaries in a new nation of states that all agreed on basic rules of conduct for a general government. The Constitution was a charter, a plan, for the arrangement of a new general government that all ratifying states could agree with. The states were highly jealous of the powers they held and were wont to surrender any to a central government. The People obviously benefitted from this BUT THE PEOPLE DID NOT CREATE THE CONSTITUTION! It is a set of rules for a general government and not a set of rules for the people! What’s worse is the states have blatantly ignored exercising their constitutional powers, to the detriment of all of the people of the states. We made a huge mistake when we allowed Senators to be elected by the people. It actually took away our “trickle up” government. Our state has no real voice in the Senate and the people are ignored by the senators they elect. Heaven help the ignorant. Many, including the President and those in Congress, have no idea why the Constitution is such a masterpiece of government ever devised by man. The states have failed us every bit as much as the fed. The only real grassroots change that can come about must be from the states. That’s where we need to focus our efforts. After all, when a state talks, people in the fed are more apt to listen. Fat chance that they will heed millions of voices of individuals; this government doesn’t give a hoot what you and I believe is constitutional.

Merry – it was the People who gave the constitution force, through their ratification of it.

The state ratification conventions were made up of representatives elected by the people – they were not creature of the state governments

All sides of the debate, and especially the federalists who were supporting the constitution – held this position. The federal government (not the constitution) was created through the will and the consent of the people.

It is the People who are sovereign. Even the greatest promoter of government power at the time of the founding, Alexander Hamilton, made it quite clear that this was the case.

Here’s the how the text of the Virginia Ratifying document started. It’s a good example of the how the Constitution was viewed – as a document deriving its power from the people. (emphasis mine):

“We the Delegates of the People of Virginia duly elected in pursuance of a recommendation from the General Assembly and now met in Convention having fully and freely investigated and discussed the proceedings of the Federal Convention and being prepared as well as the most mature deliberation hath enabled us to decide thereon Do in the name and in behalf of the People of Virginia declare and make known that the powers granted under the Constitution being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression and that every power not granted thereby remains with them and at their will”

“The committee on style of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 was headed by Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania. Notwithstanding the Northern nationalist rhetoric, this is what Gouverneur Morris said was the meaning of the Constitution and those words, “We the people,” that he had authored: The Constitution was a compact not between individuals, but between political societies, the people, not of America, but of the United States, each enjoying sovereign power and of course equal rights.

The ‘United States’ means just that: states that are united. Morris himself believed in the right of secession and supported New England’s move to secede during the War of 1812, which culminated in the Hartford Convention.”

â€œThe federal government didnâ€™t create itself – and the state governments didnâ€™t create it either. It was The People who created the federal government, and it is the People who are sovereign in the American system.â€

Michael-I believe the correct terminology is…”the people as States.” The constitution was written by the people as States…it ratified by the people as States…members of the House and now the Senate are elected by the people as States…the president is elected by the people as States…the Constitution can only be amended by the people as States….Article VII states that the Constitution is between the people as States. Only the people as States can exercise the powers of government under the Constitution.

Here are some great quotes. Sage, as I understand, was a constitutional attorney who going to represent Jefferson Davis in the event he was tried for treason.

â€œAnd it may be stated here that generally when the (founding) fathers used the phrase â€˜the people,â€™ constitutionally, they meant the people of the sovereign states, that were the actors in making the federative union. They could not have meant otherwise, for the simple reason that the people were the states, and the states were the people.â€ p.9.

â€œNatural persons, then form states, while these, as political persons, form the federation called â€˜the United States.â€™â€ p. 21.

â€œROGER SHERMAN, one of the committee to draw up the Declaration of Independence, and a signer of the same, a member of the federal convention, and of the ratifying convention of Connecticut, declared that â€˜the government of the United States was instituted by a number of SOVEREIGN states for the better security of their rights, and the advancement of their interestsâ€™â€ p. 48.

â€œA government in a republic cannot be a sovereignty at all. It can only have delegated powers, and be the creature and subordinate of the delegators. It (the constitution) reserves nothing; but the States that made it, â€˜reservedâ€™ all they did not delegate.â€ p. 56.

â€œThe truth is the states are sovereign, and all the institutions and rulers of the union are subordinate. The states are as Hamilton said, â€˜the essential component parts of the unionâ€™ of states, or â€˜the united states;â€™ and the federal government is merely the creation, the instrument, and the subject of the statesâ€¦.â€ p. 68.

â€œRoger Sherman, in her (Connecticutâ€™s) ratifying convention, said: The government of the united states being federal, and instituted by a number of sovereign states for the better security of their rights, and the advancement of their interests, they may be considered as so many pillars to support it.â€ p. 95.

â€œSaid HENRY LEEâ€¦If this were a consolidated government, ought it not to be ratified by a majority of the people, as individuals, and not as states?â€ p. 120.

â€œAnd JAMES MADISON said â€˜each state, in ratifying the constitution, is considered as a sovereign body,â€™ and â€˜no state is bound by it without its own consent.â€ p. 121.

â€œThe title is â€˜Constitution of the United States,â€™ and the preamble says:â€•â€˜We, the people of the united states, * * do ordain and establish this constitution for the united states of America.â€™ Whose constitution then is it? The title answers, â€˜the constitution of the * states.â€™ Who is it for? The preamble answers, â€˜this constitution for the * states.â€™ The states then are the important subjects of these sentences, while the word â€˜unitedâ€™â€•meaning associatedâ€•is a mere adjective. These phrases obviously refer to pre-existent states, united by compact. It was only as such bodies that the â€˜peopleâ€™ could become parties to the constitution, for each individual citizen was a member of a state, and had no right whatever to act politically, except in such body and as such member.

Again, â€˜people ofâ€™ and â€˜constitution of,â€™ like â€˜government of,â€™ â€˜treasury of,â€™ â€˜army and navy of,â€™ and the like phrases throughout the instrument, are possessive phrases, necessarily implying that the political entities belonged to â€˜united states,â€™ not united people; which is literally the fact, and which was the understanding of the fathers. We are then compelled to say that the owners of these things are so many states; that each must have the mind and will of an owner; and that the phrase â€˜united statesâ€™ but can mean pre-existent communities, who have conjoined themselves in league.â€ p. 160.

â€˜â€œ[T]he peopleâ€™ are the States, and the States are â€˜the people.â€™â€ p. 161.

â€œThe constitution expressly shows that all federal â€˜powersâ€™ are, and remain, derivative from, and subordinate to, the states as such.
Article I. declares that â€˜all legislative powers herein granted, shall be vested in a congress of the united states.â€™ Article II. declares that â€˜the executive power shall be vested in a president of the united states.â€™ Article III. declares that â€˜the judicial power shall be vested in one supreme court,â€™ etc. Whose â€˜judicial powerâ€™ is referred to? â€˜The judicial power of the united states,â€™ of course. Whose legislative and executive authority is meant? That of the same states.â€ p 163.

â€œâ€˜[T]he united statesâ€™ are â€˜the (federal) government;â€™ and that the name â€˜the united statesâ€™ means the people as states, and not the people as (one) state or nation.â€ p. 316.

â€˜â€œ[T] united states,â€™ and â€˜the people of the united states,â€™ are identicalâ€¦.â€ p. 349.

â€œ[T]he people pre-existed as states; they were recognised and provided for in the pact as states; they ratified and ordained as states; they have always amended as states; and they now exist as states, the self-same political entities that convened in 1787 to plan the constitution, and that subsequently ratified and ordained the same by their respective conventions, according to article VII.â€ p. 352.

Bob: Some good quotes, and you’ll see I addressed the “people as states” portion above. The real phrase is “The people of the several states.”

“Of” and “as” have widely different meanings in this context.

Also, as far as methodology, to obtain a proper definition of constitutional terms – to give a correct original meaning and original understanding, there’s a pretty solid line where constitutional scholars would make a cut off. some would say 1800, others would say when the bill of rights was ratified.

Personally I used to look to St George Tucker quite often as authority on the Constitution until it was pointed out to me by some kind scholars that he was too late – and that his views were nothing more than opinions (even if they’re correct).

To be authoritative one must search the historical record of the time. That includes the debates, the ratifying conventions, the “newspapers of record” and the like.

Michael Bouldin— I disagree with your statement, “All sides of the debate, and especially the federalists who were supporting the constitution – held this position. The federal government (not the constitution) was created through the will and the consent of the people.”

You did not read my comment! Or, you are unaware that the constitutional convention was called for by the states. It was not called for by the general citizenry as it just may end up happening today in the case of amendments. The first convention to amend the Articles of Confederation never took place because too few representatives OF THE STATES showed up. “The People” were not the movers and shakers behind the first effort, and as far as I understand it, they also were not behind the constitutional convention that followed. Remember the woman who asked Ben Franklin what they were doing in Independence Hall? Do you think this woman knew what a Republic was? Do you think most citizens of that day did? Were they not products of monarchies? The People became involved once something was presented for ratification, in this case the constitution. The states were in turmoil and all had their own sweet deals with traders, etc. THE STATES knew that they had better come together for all of their sakes. They were jealous of one another and their “rights”. They saw themselves as 13 different countries much like it was in Europe. The People were, in many cases, ambivalent, unaware, or working too dang hard to recover from the War for Independence to be intimately involved with anything except local government. The People finally consented to this creation of the states because they believed in their state representatives and many scholarly others of renown. The people as a whole could not have devised such a charter on their own. So the real truth (and proper wording) is that the People CONSENTED to the constitution. They did however, CREATE the first ten amendments!

I stand by my statement. The Fed, under the constitution, was conceived of and created by the states, and the people consented to it. To say otherwise actually serves to dimish the work of the brightest minds that debated throughout that hot summer in Philadelphia.

We want to thank you so very much for all you are doing to preserve our freedoms and our country! May God Bless and strengthen you and all who so endeavor. We wish, sincerely, that we could send you monies to help, but we are senior citizens trying to get by on an extremely reduced income. Those in Washington seem to be bent on destroying all this great Country has stood for. We desperately need those who are younger and in places equipped to take a stand publicly across this nation and afford us the hope of saving our Country. We go to any tea party near by and sign faxes to Washington in protest against all they are doing, call our representatives and constantly write telling them how we feel about everything that is happening, so we do all we can in our way. Having lived free and happily in this Fine Country for over 80 years it disgusts us to see the way this administration is seeking to remove all our freedoms, destroying our Constitution, and deliberately trying to remove God from us and our entire nation!

Enjoy this web site very much. Agee totally with the 10th amendant movement. But!! Time is of the essence. I think someting very bad is about to happen to our country. I think we have a very small window to work with. I can forsee the president taking over our nation and it becoming a marxist ditatorship. He and his czars plus the far left is getting it lined up while most in this country is asleep at the wheel. I wonder where our Military would stand if our way of life is being destroyed?
If you beleive in the end of time as I do, then it could be that God has turned His back on the USA. I think God still hears the prayers of His people but His answer may be NO!So to resist or to comply?I chose to resist even tho it may be against God will. I don’t think He will hold it against me in the end.

Thank you very much….you quoted much of what I have about the STATES forming the Fed. You actually had quite a few more in there than I’ve ever seen. You clearly make the case that the Fed was formed by the states.

My argument with the author is that when he states that “The People” created the government he gives rise to the misconception that the people throughout the new nation rose up in en masse and created the Constitution. You demonstrated that this is not the case. I’m a bit fickle about the terms and concepts that the authors use here as they may distort attitudes and understanding of the Constitution. In this case, without the insulation of the states, if the People formed the government it would have been a national government versus a Federal government. There is a HUGE difference in the two! The former with virtually unlimited power over the people, the latter with very a very limited scope. The limited government is what the founders wished to create and they did a darn good job of it! The People suffer from an all-powerful government like the leviathan we have today. Anyone with a clear head wants a government with VERY limited powers to keep the union safe and do the very few things it is charged with doing. The states have abandoned their people and it’s about time they figured that out as you cannot fix a problem if you don’t know where it is! The original article here leads people to the wrong conclusions and possibly thinking that they are powerless over the fed. They are not if they go to the right place and make their voices heard there!

Merry – you don’t seem to be paying attention. I made specific mention that it was the People who created the federal government, and in my comment above, noted that they did not create the constitution – which is pretty obvious to me.

You seem to be confusing the constitution with the federal government.

The delegates to the convention did draft the constitution, which created the proposal for the form of government.

But, as stated above, it was the people who gave that constitution life – the people gave the government its power, its legitimacy….everything.

Or, would you say that the Virginia ratifying convention (and virtually every other one too) were just making all that up?

“Merry – you don’t seem to be paying attention. I made specific mention that it was the People who created the federal government, and in my comment above, noted that they did not create the constitution – which is pretty obvious to me.

You seem to be confusing the constitution with the federal government.”

I notice you did not pick apart Mr.Greenslade’s points. I believe you think it’s okay to assume something because it’s “obvious” to you. It may not be so obvious to the reader. Forums, as I understand them are to inform people and generate/exchange new ideas. You repeat that “the People created the federal government” and then say “they did not create the Constitution.” Mr. Bouldin, the fed existed long before the Constitution— we did have a Confederation of States regardless of all of its flaws. The Constitution created the fed as it is today. The Constitution was the charter for a new federal government of States CREATED by the states. The people, in their states, gave their CONSENT to this new charter. PERIOD.

“The Constitution created the fed as it is today. The Constitution was the charter for a new federal government of States CREATED by the states. The people, in their states, gave their CONSENT to this new charter. PERIOD.”

you are correct in stating that the constitution was created by representatives of the states at the convention, and that the people gave consent to the new constitution.

But creating the constitution was not what created the federal government. The people who created the constitution only proposed a new form of government, and that’s entirely different. “Consent” of the people is what “created” the federal government.

This is how it was explained to the people by the supporters of Constitution at the time of ratification.

If you still hold some kind of belief that this is incorrect, it’s not ME that you disagree with – I’m just repeating the words of the founders themselves…and the ratifying conventions of the people of the founding generation too.

Keep in mind what you’re arguing for. The “creator” in the American system is the sovereign. Is it state government that is sovereign, or the People – who also created the state governments?

Also keep in mind that when I refer to “the People” – as stated above – I’m referring to the definition of “the people” from that time…..which is “the people of the several states.” And that is right in line with Madison’s quote from Bob’s comment.

It was definitely the States that created the federal government, with the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution changed the form of that government, but did not create a new federation. And it definitely was not the people who called for the Constitutional Convention, it was the elitists like Hamilton who realized that the Articles would never allow them to build the empire they wanted. Their problem with the British empire was not that it was an empire, it was that it was British. They wanted to do it themselves.

We the People?
“We hold these truths to be self evident, the son of a king is not a king, the son of a slave is not a slave, all men are created equal.”
We the People?
“He who would be your chief must be servant of all.”,
Gospel of Matthew,
(KJV, King James Version, Bible),
more or less.

“No taxation without representation.”
I agree with “consent of the people”.
Most of the people were illiterate, and could not possibly write a document such as the Constitution, therefore public education, (paid for education), became mandatory attendance, kindergarten through high school.

Michael-I agree the phrase-â€œThe people of the several statesâ€ is the language used by the Founders. When trying to explain this concept I have found it is easier to use the term â€œthe people as States.â€ I personally like â€œthe people as Statesâ€ phrase better because it removes any confusion and wipes out the consolidation argument that has plagued us since the Constitution was written.

In what might be the most profound statement in his book, Sage wrote:

The assertion that the people, as individuals â€œformed a (one) nation, called the â€˜united statesâ€™â€•(is) an absurdity like saying that thirteen persons were formed into one person, called the united persons.â€ p. 310.

Here are a few more quotes from Sage:

â€œEdward Everett wrote to (Thomas) Jefferson, in 1828, â€˜the constitution of the united states is a compact of independent nationsâ€™â€•this being also the view of Jefferson.â€ p. 354. Everett (1794-1865) was a Representative and United States Senator from Massachusetts. He was also served as Secretary of State under President Millard Fillmore.

â€œThe institution called â€˜the (federal) governmentâ€™ has no right of control over them (the States), because it springs from their will, and has only the authority they delegateâ€¦.â€ p. 358.

â€œThe people are the states, and as such they compose whatever nation there is; and the general government is the agency of the states, by and through which they exercise federal self-government.
The people are the states, and are sovereign, for they are republics, or self-governing bodies of people. They were never organized otherwise. Nor have they any capacity for political action, except as statesâ€¦.â€ p. 391-392.

â€œPolitically speaking, â€˜the people,â€™â€•as has been saidâ€•could only exist and exert (their) will as states. It was only as states that they could create and operate a federal governmentâ€¦.â€ p. 423.

I highly recommend this rare book from 1878!! Re-prints are available…and no I have no stake in the sale of this book.

Not so fast, Mr. Boldin. The REAL ID has been put on hold and it is to be replaced by the new PASS ID.

I hate to be the one who has to rain on the parade here, but does anyone here think the petty tyrants that run the Democratic and Republican parties in the states are going to suddenly start embracing the Constitution?

It must be obvious to most people aware of the current situation in America that the Constitution has failed. It hasn’t been working for decades. What makes anyone think that it will start working now as we are on the verge of totalitarianism? Perhaps it is time to consider abolishing the federal government altogether. It may not lead to utopia, but it would surely be better than what we have now – a budding dystopia.

As you can see by the great quotes cited by Bob Greenslade, the states created the fed and the people of the states consented to it. You continue to try and convince me otherwise; I am, and believe, that I will remain unconvinced. Every person’s interpretation can be skewed somewhat by what they read. I do not know how much you have read, who taught you what you know, or if you have actually studied American History along with the Constitution. All I can tell you is that I developed a keen interest in government under the Constitution more than 20 years after I left school. I have spent many years in self-directed research because I found it fascinating. As a result, I feel very confident in my assertions although I must admit that there is still a heck of a lot of sources (such as Mr. Greenslade’s) that I have yet to read. Might I suggest that you run your ideas by the Constitutional scholars at Hillsdale College. If they see merit in your assertions I might be more receptive to the possibility of your argument. Please understand that I am not trying to engage you in a battle of wits! You continue to cite ratifications of the various states, some of which, as a life long real estate broker, I find to be questionable as to their lawfulness and original intent.

Reading quotes from 100 years after the constitution was ratified is not the basis for originalism.

The proper method for the meaning and intent of the constitution comes from these sources:

1. Original meaning
2. Original intent
3. Original understanding

Your viewpoints are so far from the truth that it’s hard to spend any further time trying to educate you in a personal exchange. If you’d like some recommendations on where to start your study, I can offer you a few.

Start out in our publications section with Kurt Lash’s “Original Meaning of an Omission” for a basic overview of the history and understanding of the 10th amendment.

Chapter 3 of Kevin Gutzman’s “Virginia’s American Revolution” is an absolute wealth of information.

There’s a lot more from there…

Anyone who laughs off the Virginia Ratifying convention’s statement on the constitution – is actually missing what’s considered one of the greatest inputs of constitutional understanding.

“Michael-I agree the phrase-â€œThe people of the several statesâ€ is the language used by the Founders. When trying to explain this concept I have found it is easier to use the term â€œthe people as States.â€”

So while you agree that the founders (and the words of the constitution itself) said one thing, you just “feel it’s easier” to use a different word.

“So while you agree that the founders (and the words of the constitution itself) said one thing, you just â€œfeel itâ€™s easierâ€ to use a different word.

The result? A different definition thatâ€™s opposite to reality.”

First, you are using my statement out of context. I said:

“I agree the phrase-â€œThe people of the several statesâ€ is the language used by the Founders. When trying to explain this concept I have found it is easier to use the term â€œthe people as States.â€ I personally like â€œthe people as Statesâ€ phrase better because it removes any confusion and wipes out the consolidation argument that has plagued us since the Constitution was written.”

Second, unless you are claiming the phrase â€œthe people of the several statesâ€ means something completely different than “the people as States,” then the two phrases mean the same thing because the people constitute the entities called States. The States the people created constitute the United States.

If the Constitution was not written and adopted by the people as States, then it could only have been written and adopted by the people of all the States as comprising one state or nation.

This is an either or proposition. The people either act as States in managing the federal government or they act as one people in managing the federal government.

I certainly understand and am sympathetic to your goal of defining “The People” as “The People of the Several States” and not some mythical unified national people as so many people would prefer.

But, the bottom line is that you’re causing a different misunderstanding (while not nearly as bad), by misquoting the document and the founders out of convenience. The reality here is that the phrase you’re using is wrong.

Words and meanings are extremely important – especially in Constitutional originalism.

“The People as States” is certainly a different meaning than “The People of the Several States”

More importantly, the former is incorrect, and the latter is correct.

Every phrase of the Constitution was debated and discussed heavily – both in the convention and the ratifying conventions too. The truth, as you knkow, is that the Constitution was drafted – and approved – with language different than what you’re using.

That’s a serious error in Constitutional understanding.

With all the research you put into your writing and discussion, I’m a bit surprised that you’d even consider intentionally using a phrase not in the Constitution and considering it no big deal.

There’s a different direction that you can take in defending the “unified people” position and Professor Kurt T. Lash does it quite nicely in his publication, “The Original Meaning of an Omission” I strongly recommend that one to you….

Michael-my position is the Constitution is simply an expansion of the system of government established by the Articles of Confederation. In Federalist Essay No. 40, Madison addressed the argument that ratification of the proposed constitution would change the nature of the general government:

â€œThe truth is that the great principles of the Constitution proposed by the convention may be considered less as absolutely new, than as the expansion of principles which are found in the articles of Confederation.â€

Thus, the Constitution did not radically change the basic system of government that was in place before the Federal Convention of 1787â€”it only expanded it. The federal government would remain the government of the States united under the compact [contract] called â€œThe Constitution for the United States of America.â€

When adopted, the Constitution did not consolidate the several States, or their people, into one nation.

This takes us back to our controversy. The word â€œpeopleâ€ only appears 2 times in the body of the Constitution. Once in the preamble and once in Article I, Section 2 where the phrase â€œthe People of the several Statesâ€ appears. Thus, there can be no debate concerning the existence of this phrase in the document as you stated.

This is the ONLY place in the Constitution where â€œthe People of the several Statesâ€ are vested with a duty.

However, â€œthe People as States,â€ even though that phrase does not appear in the Constitution, are recognized and given power under the Constitution for the simple reason that the people are the States and the States are the people.

Article VII states:

â€œThe Ratification of the Conventions of nine States, shall be sufficient for the Establishment of this Constitution between the States so ratifying the Same.

done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States presentâ€¦In Witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names.â€

The words â€œbetween the Statesâ€ were added by a special motion in the Constitutional Convention â€œto confine the operation of the government to those States ratifying it.â€ The Constitution did not confine the operation of government to â€œthe People of the several States.â€

Only â€œthe People as Statesâ€ are recognized here. As stated in Article VII, when 9 States ratified the Constitution it went into effect irrespective of whether a majority of â€œthe People of the several Statesâ€ were in favor of ratification. The people as the State of North Carolina remained out of the Union of States until 1789. The people as the State of Rhode Island remained out of the Union of States until 1790.

Article V vests the power of amendment exclusively in â€œthe People as States.â€ When 38 States ratify an amendment, it becomes part of the Constitution irrespective of whether a majority of â€œthe People of the several Statesâ€ were in favor of the Amendment. Thus, the power of â€œthe People as Statesâ€ can trump the wishes of a majority of â€œthe People of the several Statesâ€ and change the powers of the government established by the Constitution.

The Electoral College functions on the exact same principle. A vote of â€œthe People as Statesâ€ can trump a majority vote of â€œthe People of the several States.â€

You are right…the phrase â€œthe People as Statesâ€ does not specifically appear it the Constitution but â€œthe People as Statesâ€ are recognized and have power none the less.

Bob – if there’s anything you don’t have to do with me, is explain how a consolidation is improper – and a bad idea for this country. I’m actually on your side with that!

On this, I can’t recommend Prof Lash’s paper highly enough. I think it’ll help your arguments in their constitutional soundness.

One other thing to keep in mind when analyzing the Constitution – a fatal flaw that many people make is to resort to singular quotes to make one’s case. (there’s more reading I can offer on methodology, but it’s really dry stuff!)

For example, Madison is generally a good one to use as the “father of the constitution” but he did waffle quite a bit over his career. In fact, his “Virginia Plan” at the outset of the Convention offered up a version of government that was and is disastrous – a Congress that could veto state laws, a federal government authorized to use military against the states, a national legislature with the ability to legislate about anything and a judiciary that had few limits on what it could hear. Gladly, the Plan was soundly rejected….

One last point on the “as states” vs “of the several states”

It seems to me that you’re actually mis-defining “People of the Several States” It is far more closely defined – in original understanding – to what you’re considering “people as states” to be. “of the several states” was not meant to imply a “national people” as you’re alluding to……although some do make that argument. But then again, if you continue using “as states” I believe you promote the incorrect belief that state governments, not the people of those several states, gave authority to the federal government.

It’s my opinion that it’s better to use the correct phrases and work to help educate people on their proper meaning…

Please correct me if I am wrong. Isn’t it the RESPONSIBILITY of the state legislator to inform his constituents and solicit their opinion preferably by vote like we see today in Arizona? It seems to me this would truly return us to ‘Of the People,’ to have we the citizens, petitioned for such participation of things like National ID, Health Care, Bailouts, etc… at State Levels. But more important, continued respect for limited Federal Government via adhering to the Constitution as originally intended.

“But then again, if you continue using “as states” I believe you promote the incorrect belief that state governments, not the people of those several states, gave authority to the federal government.”

Maybe the problem here is semantics; I say the People of the states gave their CONSENT to the new Constitution that the State representatives CREATED. In a convoluted way you could say the People gave “authority” to the Fed although the “authority” (or powers) vested in the Fed came from the creators of the Constitution. One must remember, the Constitution was created to fix a faulty Fed that already existed. Further, I find it hard to state that the People created the Fed under the Constitution for the most simple reason of all: The Constitution solidified a democratic republican form of government. If all of the People were necessary to its success, then this would demonstrate a democracy had been established.

A perfect example of the same crud is happening now on the healthcare (medical care actually) debate. The people seem to think that the greater and louder voices at townhall meetings, in the media, in Congress, and in the White House will force a majority rule outcome REGARDLESS OF THE CONSTITUTIONALITY of any bill on this subject. The People, as a whole (as in a democracy), do not have the power to “authorize” the Fed to pass a healthcare bill. Even the states are not able to do so although many Reps and Sens think they can regardless of the limits of the Constitution. However, the People as a whole throughout the federal Republic do have the right to withdraw their consent!

Good quote, but I’m not in any form of disagreement that there is no “one great national body”

This quote from Madison is an important one – because he’s giving a proper opinion of “The people of the several states” as NOT being that “unified national people”

You mentioned that Madison could have said something different. But he didn’t.

You are.

Changing any of the words of the Constitution, or now in this case, changing the words of Madison’s quote, without prefacing it by saying they’re your words and not the words of the author just doesn’t pass our muster here.

It’s totally unsound and while I don’t believe it’s your goal, gives an impression of being intentionally misleading.

That’s just what politicians do in this country every day, and it’s something we strongly oppose, even in the most minor situation.

You may think it’s ok to do so, and you have plenty of explanations as to why…many of which I consider understandable.

But, the bottom line remains. The constitution says one thing, and you use something else.

I take exception to your statement: “changing the words of Madisonâ€™s quote, without prefacing it by saying theyâ€™re your words and not the words of the author just doesnâ€™t pass our muster here.” I stated he “COULD HAVE” used those words and it would have meant the same thing as what he DID SAY.

QUESTION

Would you agree or disagree with the following statement?

Constitutionally, “the People of the several States” are only united as States.

It was said–I think it was Greenslade who said it–that the states didn’t delegate power to the federal government that it could use against them. …words to that effect…

However, that was a major point of federalizing as opposed to merely improving the confederation. The argument was that war and other “social compact” matters needed a systematic way to collect monies. The Articles of Confederation could have been improved (having read it, it needed a lot of improving), but there was a solid argument (and probably some conspiratorial matters also) for federalizing.

I’m also not sure that even the founding generation understood the real revolution they were creating, so I don’t necessarily think many more than Jefferson, Madison and Mason are ideal consults on meaning.

Anyway, the point I really wanted to make… There are several components of the federal government that do create a power that can be exerted against the states. Off the bat, the power of taxation, components of the Bill of Rights.

In fact, I would contend that the Constitution was not going to pass until the anti-federalists struck on the idea that rights could be enforced by federalization as much as tyranny could be, and then forced those rights into the Constitution.

Anyway, on the Tenth Amendment thing… I agree with the principle. It’s a bit ticklish, but even if states are compelled against their will, it sends a message–and the compulsion, if done, creates a big knot of trouble for the feds.

I would never say, “no need to repeal the legislation.” If it’s on the books, some whippersnapper one day will pick it up and run with it.

In fact, I think Congress should be compelled to review every statute on a periodic basis and decide, again, whether it’s constitutional, effective, etc.

For those characters sworn to defend the Constitution against all foreign and domestic enemies… well, they are committing a crime if they don’t obey their oath. Interpretive issues are one thing, and there needs to be some wiggle room, but “interpreting” a “living constitution” is an incredible leap and should be considered treason.

kldimond-I think the statement you referenced may have been a quote I posted.

You stated:

“There are several components of the federal government that do create a power that can be exerted against the states. Off the bat…components of the Bill of Rights.”

First, the preamble to the Constitution states it is a Constitution for States, for United States…not a Constitution over States.

Second, in the first paragraph of the preamble to the Bill of Rights it states:

“THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.”

The preamble states the sole purpose of the Amendments was to prevent the federal government from â€œmisconstruing or abusing its powers.â€ To accomplish this, â€œfurther declaratory and restrictive clausesâ€ were being recommended. The Amendments, if adopted, would place additional restraints on the powers of the federal government.

Based on the wording of the preamble, the Amendments, when adopted, placed constitutional prohibitions on the powers of the federal government to prevent that government from â€œmisconstruing or abusing its powersâ€ concerning the rights of the people.

As shown by the preamble, the Amendments are denials of power not grants of power.

What seems to me to be the most important thing for your average American to understand here is this: The states may not have created the federal government, but the federal government certainly did not create the states. The states can exist as legitimate political societies with or without the federal government. The federal government cannot exist without the states. Ultimately we all agree that power is loaned to the federal government from the bottom up, not the other way around. Those powers that were not specifically loaned to the state government by the people of that state are retained by the people. Those powers that were not specifically loaned to the federal government by the people of the several states are retained by the governments of the states. Any power that has been loaned to a government, (state or federal), by the people of a state can be withdrawn and reclaimed if the terms of the contract that established that loan of power are violated. If only the American people could just get their mind around that!

This is nonsense. The Tenth Amendment protects rights of states not “enumerated” and restricted by the rest of the Constitution. It has nothing to do with the rights of the people in the states (the non-enumerated rights of those folks are protected by the Ninth Amendment).

The Tenth Amendment, while an important part of our American liberties, does not protect the people of the states against arbitrary and unjust treatment by state government.

What about the people who want federally funded health insurance today?

What about the African Americans who were being lynched as recently as 1983 who could not get protection against state and municipal government?

A state government can be a tyranny. The state legislature of South Carolina that voted for secession and ignored the poor whites dubious about succession (not to mention the slaves) was comprised (90%) of slaveowners. West Virginia seceded from Virginia because its good people did not believe that Lincoln was a tyrant. The current governor of Wisconsin, Scott Walker, made no mention of his plan to destroy public unions. And there are states and municipalities including Massachusetts and Berkeley who make it impossible for middle class residents to own cars or homes with excess regulation: these are the so-called "Peoples' Republics" where only the wealthy and liberal can aspire to live.

State government can be and is, in many cases, significantly less democratic than Federal government. Here is why.

First of all, the turnout for state level elections is less especially when they don’t coincide with elections for President. This means that it’s easier for well-funded (see below) interest groups to capture state legislatures and governorships.

Second, in cases where the state government is “bought” by funding candidates, this is cheaper than buying Congressmen or the Presidency. The 2008 Supreme Court decision Citizens United has removed all restrictions on the putative “freedom of speech” of corporations to donate massive amounts of funds to candidates, which builds in pro-business, anti-union and anti-regulation sentiment.

Blowing up the Federal government as seems to be the programme of the current House of Representatives and their well-funded masters would NOT increase the liberty of the American citizen. Quite the opposite.

It would be like trying to get rid of an asteroid headed for Earth by tossing a nuclear bomb at it, and creating many lethal pieces of rock in place of one.

States and municipalities like Massachusetts and Berkeley would become even more like Communist societies. But far more, most states would be even more willing to destroy schools and public libraries and build jails.

There is NO SUCH THING as “state sovereignity”. The ONLY states of the Union to have been sovereign before becoming states were Texas and California. The remainder were colonies subordinate to England, then members of an emergency federation subordinate willingly to Congress during the Revolution, then signatories to the sovereignity-limiting Articles of Confederation and today non-sovereign states who cannot do things (conduct foreign policies, run deficits, etc.) that sovereign states can do, from the USA to Monaco.

The states may NOT nullify laws that were passed by their own representatives and senators! This is absurd, since it means that the people of a state can elect a Representative or Senator who drafts and/or agrees to a bill which is then nullified!

If he voted for it, whether from principle or expedience, the People of his state have spoken. Representatives and Senators are more usually elected in tandem with the President, and they are, more so than state legislators, well-known to the voter, meaning that their election is somewhat more democratic when measured against democratic ideals including one man one vote and an informed citizen.

It's true that in the most famous instance of Nullification, South Carolina's wealthy, agrarian interests were outraged at tariffs that forced them to buy farm implements and luxuries from Northern manufacturers, and it is true that the Congress had voted those measures in with the South voting against them as a bloc.

However, the original Southern colonies had agreed under the Constitution to abide by Federal law, and part of living in a community large and small is foregoing your wants and whims when the majority has spoken and your minority has voted and lost.

The only sort of people unclear on this concept at the level of the community are the local drunkards, ne'er do wells, midnight ramblers, tin hats, thugs and gangsters. We've had entirely too much goddamn romancing of this sort of trash in the media who would "nullify" common decency.

Nullification and secession is TREASON. And if you clowns pull that shit, the President has the right and duty to preserve and protect the United States of America by all means including war.